2. He had made a false declaration on a Guide Outfitter's Report and Declaration Ca violation of Section 84(1) of the Wildlife Act).

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2. He had made a false declaration on a Guide Outfitter's Report and Declaration Ca violation of Section 84(1) of the Wildlife Act)."

Prosper Day
5 years ago
Views:

1 APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE J U D GEM ENT IN THE APPEAL of Mr. Hans Marten Hansen against the IHldlife Act - Order of the Director of Wildlife of 03 March This Order was for the cancellation of the Guide Outfitter's Licence and Guide Outfitter's Certificate, No. 318, of Mr. Hansen. Before the Director made his Order, he gave consideration to the fact that Mr. Hansen had pled guilty and been convicted of three violations of the Wildlife Act in Provincial Court, which were as follows:- 1. He had failed to make every reasonable effort to remove edible portions of moose carcasses to a place of consumption (i.e., either a cold storage locker, or a meat processing establishment - a violation of Section 36 of the Wildlife Act). 2. He had made a false declaration on a Guide Outfitter's Report and Declaration Ca violation of Section 84(1) of the Wildlife Act). 3. He had failed to submit a Guide Outfitter's Report and Declaration for a sheep (a violation of Section 55(1) of the Wildlife Act). Further, before the Director made his Order, he gave Mr. Hansen an appeal hearing at his level. At that hearing he heard evidence from the Crown, and subsequent cross-examination. In addition, during the course of the hearing, a "Statement of Facts" was prepared, agreed to and presented by counsel for both parties to the appeal. The Director's Order was based on the evidence of the Crown, the convictions at Provincial Court and the "Statement of Facts" which were as follows:-... 2/

2 APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE PAGE 2 1. Mr. Hansen did not complete and file the required report for the shooting of a nuisance grizzly bear. 2a. He failed to report the accidental shooting of an undersized ram (Krook event). 2b. He failed to file a Guide Outfitter's Report and Declaration for Mr. Steve Krook. 3. Mr. Schroeder, a hunter guided by one of Mr. Hansens' employees, shot two moose, when he was only entitled to one. 4. Mr. Hansens' employees failed to make every reasonable effort to remove the edible portions of moose to a place of consumption (52 moose were involved). 5. He assisted an American citizen in applying for an Assistant Guide Licence. 6. He did not disclose the killing of a wolf by one of his employees on a Report and Declaration of Guide Outfitter. 7. Some non-resident hunters, guided by his employees, used species tags and licences belonging to other persons, who did not hunt, and were not even in the country. A more detailed description of the events in the agreed "Statement of Facts" can be seen in Appendix "A", attached to this Judgement document. A P P ELL ANT MR. HANS MARTEN HANSEN President, Scoop Lake Outfitters Ltd. R.R. #6, Paret Place Ke1owna, British Columbia VlY 8R3... 3/

3 APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE PAGE 3 D E C I S ION The Environmental Appeal Board, authorized by the Wildlife Act and the Environment Management Act to hear the appeal of Mr. Hans Marten Hansen against the Order of the Director of Wildlife of 03 March 1988, in which Mr. Hansen's Guide Outfitter's Licence and Guide Outfitter's Certificate No. 318 were cancelled, has considered all of the evidence and argument submitted to it at the hearing of 08 June 1988, and has decided that the cancellation of Mr. Hansen's licence and certificate, for the violations of the Wildlife Act which he or his employees committed, is too severe a punishment. Accordingly, the matter is sent back to the Director of Wildlife, with the following directives:- 1. The Appellant's Guide Outfitters Licence and Guide Outfitters Certificate shall be renewed for the normal period from 31 March The Appellant's Guide Outfitters Licence and Guide Outfitters Certificate and the renewal thereof shall be suspended from 17 December The period of suspension shall be until 16 December 1988 unless the Appellant transfers such Licence and Certificate with the consent of the Director to another person before that date. The suspension under these conditions shall cease if and when the other person has acquired all of the Appellant's interest in such Licence and Certificate. 3. The stay in the operation of the Director's order imposed by the Board on 20 May 1988 is lifted. No action shall be taken against the Appellant for exercising his rights under the Licence and Certificate while the stay was in operation, notwithstanding the suspension imposed by the Board. 4. In considering an application to transfer the Appellant's Licence and Certificate to another person, the Director shall ignore the offences or alleged offences of the Appellant.... 4/

4 APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE PAGE 4 COMMENTS OF THE BOARD The Board, in it's decision, was influenced by the following information given in oral evidence or in the exhibits:- 1. Mr. Hansen was not personally present when any of the hunting violations took place. In almost all of the situations, Mr. Hansen did not acquire knowledge that the violation had taken place until after the investigation by the conservation officer, Mr. Donald Thatcher. It would seem, therefore, that all of the hunting offences were committed without Mr. Hansen's knowledge and without his consent. 2. The Board understands that none of the licenced guides who actually were involved in the hunting offences were charged with an offence. The Board wonders why? Surely if their licences and the obligations under those licences mean anything, they too should have been charged. The Director says that the responsibility for any violation is Mr. Hansen's alone. From Section 106(1) of the Wildlife Act, there is no doubt that Mr. Hansen must bear a substantial amount of the responsibility for the offences, but not all, and particularly if there is some doubt that the offences were committed without his knowledge or consent. It seems that Mr. Hansen has been singled out and not treated fairly in relationship to other offenders. 3. Counsel for the Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Environment & Parks, confirmed that it was agreed by both himself and counsel for the appellant in the "Statement of Facts" that a one year suspension of Mr. Hansen's Guide Outfitters Licence would be appropriate given all the circumstances. Also it was stated by Mr. Braidwood, that this was concurred to by the investigating officer of the offences. Further, Mr. Groberman stated that that was the position of the Ministry at the time the "Statement of Facts" was drawn up, and still is the position of the Ministry today. 4. The circumstances and evidence which were before the Provincial Court Judge were similarly before the Director of Wildlife at the administrative hearing. The Provincial Court Judge only imposed a fine upon Mr. Hansen of $2, The maximum penalty for the three offences that the Provincial Court Judge. 5/

5 APPEAL NO. 88/05 WILDLIFE PAGE 5 could have ~posed was $11, and/or a term of imprisonment of six months for each offence. The Provincial Court Judge, after hearing the evidence, and presumably using his experience in matters of this kind, set the penalty in relationship to what he considered was appropriate. 5. In addition to the $2, fine, because of the adverse publicity, and the actions of the Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Environment during the eight month investigation, and the suspension which was issued in June, 1987, Mr. Hansen also experienced a "loss of revenue in 1987 of approximately $150, in relationship to 1986 revenues. It would, therefore, "appear that his financial penalty for the offences committed is actually far in excess of the $2, (perhaps in the order of $150,000.00). 6. Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that Mr. Hansen had put his whole life into the building of Scoop Lake Outfitters Ltd., and that the operations are worth in excess of $1,500, in the aquisition and development of the guiding enterprise. He further said that to uphold the Director's order and cancel the Certificate and Licence would amount to a penalty of this magnitude. He said that to impose this horrendous penalty on Mr. Hansenand his wif~, is like expropriation without compensation of his whole life's work. 7. The Board was told that Mr. Hansen had arranged a sale of his guiding area and business establishment pending the results of this hearing, that is if there was anything left to sell. It would therefore appear, that if the Director of Wildlife feels that it is desirable to have Mr. Hansen removed from guide outfitting in British Columbia, he has a method to accomplish this end, without destroying Mr. Hansen and his wife financially. ~ Chairman Environmental Appeal Board Victoria British Columbia 04 July 1988

J U D GEM ENT. Appeal against decision of the Director, Fish & Wildlife Branch, dated July 25, 1983

J U D GEM ENT. Appeal against decision of the Director, Fish & Wildlife Branch, dated July 25, 1983 I') Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Victoria British Columbia V8V 1X5 Appeal No. 83/11 W'LIFE J U D GEM ENT Appeal against decision of the Director, Fish